An overview of some of the policy implications of the eco‐economic development market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent economic/environmental discourse on development issues has led to a new paradigm of development, called here the “eco‐economic development model”, but usually known as sustainable development (including both ecological and economic concerns), which has successfully substituted the traditional model of economic development in general acceptance. However, new models usually imply new rules and perhaps a new type of market, yet policy issues within the eco‐economic development paradigm are being addressed with theoretical constructs and a state of mind as if we were still in the old paradigm – perhaps because the nature and the internal structure of the new paradigm are not yet well known and understood, as nobody has apparently looked into this. It should be expected that the two paradigms are not equivalent to each other, and therefore, they should be addressed differently. This paper presents a qualitative approach, from a systematic point of view, which can be used to highlight how different the two paradigms are in terms of structure and policy implications. Then, this information is used to provide an answer to three questions: is the economic development market the same as the eco‐economic development market; if not, how many invisible hands are there in the eco‐economic development market; and what are the environmental, social, and economic policy implications of this situation?. Shows that new paradigms require a new line of thinking to market policy and planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".